HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Interference on Lundqvist on 2nd goal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2014, 09:32 PM
  #101
Atomic Punk
Mean Streets
 
Atomic Punk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Panama
Country: United States
Posts: 8,880
vCash: 50
I don't think Henry was even going to get to that puck. So far behind him.

Atomic Punk is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:33 PM
  #102
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,651
vCash: 500
I thought it was interference, but you can't review judgement calls with judgement calls. It has to be something that can be determined definitely to overturn the call on ice.

Crosbyfan is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:34 PM
  #103
I Am Classless
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Falkland Islands
Posts: 1,613
vCash: 500
Looked like a discretion call, where the ref isn't really wrong for calling it or letting it slide. I don't think he was getting to the puck, so I was okay with it.

I Am Classless is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:34 PM
  #104
KirkAlbuquerque
Registered User
 
KirkAlbuquerque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 351
vCash: 500
It was interference. But whatever, 2 OT goals


Last edited by SniperHF: 05-02-2014 at 09:42 PM. Reason: Nah
KirkAlbuquerque is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:42 PM
  #105
GoHabsTexansGoQC
Registered User
 
GoHabsTexansGoQC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin6612 View Post
Well. Since its 69.1, that might mean theirs a .2, and a .3 and a .4 and a .5 and then we hit......


69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.


The things with rules if you have to read all of them.

A lot of people here seem to be the ones who failed those trick tests in school where the directions tell them to write their name and turn it in blank.
More people need to see this.

GoHabsTexansGoQC is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 09:54 PM
  #106
Whoot Whoot
Biased-NYR-Homer
 
Whoot Whoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHabsTexansGoQC View Post
More people need to see this.
Loose pucks don't require goalie interaction to stop them from going in the net. We call those shots. That puck was going in the net, went in the net, hence it is a shot

Whoot Whoot is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:05 PM
  #107
Griffin6612
Registered User
 
Griffin6612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoot Whoot View Post
Loose pucks don't require goalie interaction to stop them from going in the net. We call those shots. That puck was going in the net, went in the net, hence it is a shot
You are making up your own definition of what a loose puck is. A loose puck is a puck not covered up by the goaltender.

It doesn't matter what direction the puck is traveling, how high, what plane of existence the puck is currently in, nor the speed or potential color the puck may be at the time.

If the puck is in the crease, and the puck is not covered by the goalie in any sense ( gloves, stuck in equipment) then it is loose.

And if you REALLY want to get technical on me, then actually it was a REBOUND since it hit off of Lundy, which by 69.6 is still fair play.

Griffin6612 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:13 PM
  #108
GoHabsTexansGoQC
Registered User
 
GoHabsTexansGoQC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoot Whoot View Post
Loose pucks don't require goalie interaction to stop them from going in the net. We call those shots. That puck was going in the net, went in the net, hence it is a shot
A loose puck? That's clearly a rebound.

GoHabsTexansGoQC is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:16 PM
  #109
Oak
Hockey fan
 
Oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,763
vCash: 50
I watched a few different angles and as a Rangers fan I'm saying this wasn't interference. Even if Malkin would have interfered the puck was still going in. It was just a ****** bounce.

Oak is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:30 PM
  #110
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tone King View Post
I don't think Henry was even going to get to that puck. So far behind him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Classless View Post
I don't think he was getting to the puck, so I was okay with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardacus View Post
Even if Malkin would have interfered the puck was still going in.
This idea is all over this thread, and I don't think it's the point of anyone who does believe it to be interference here. It doesn't matter if the puck was going in anyway. What matters is that Lundqvist didn't have any chance to try to get to it. That's where the interference comes in.

And rule 69.6 doesn't apply, since restricting the goalie's ability to make a play isn't incidental contact.

Alas, non-reviewable play and didn't cost the game. So, at this point, who cares?

Tawnos is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:42 PM
  #111
lastcupever75
NY Roadkill
 
lastcupever75's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
This idea is all over this thread, and I don't think it's the point of anyone who does believe it to be interference here. It doesn't matter if the puck was going in anyway. What matters is that Lundqvist didn't have any chance to try to get to it. That's where the interference comes in.

And rule 69.6 doesn't apply, since restricting the goalie's ability to make a play isn't incidental contact.
look at the youtube in post #86. the replays that begin at 55 seconds

he has every opportunity to play the puck. he chooses to go and block malkin's stick (in order to prevent malkin from knocking in the puck).

malkin didnt do anything to prevent lundquist from making a play on the puck

lastcupever75 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:43 PM
  #112
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,726
vCash: 2940
That was interference, but it would have ended up being a goal if he wasn't interfered with anyway.

Kane One is online now  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:47 PM
  #113
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastcupever75 View Post
look at the youtube in post #86. the replays that begin at 55 seconds

he has every opportunity to play the puck. he chooses to go and block malkin's stick (in order to prevent malkin from knocking in the puck).

malkin didnt do anything to prevent lundquist from making a play on the puck
Oh, should I look at a replay of a goal I've clearly seen replays of? That will help sort out the differences for sure!

Tawnos is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:53 PM
  #114
Whoot Whoot
Biased-NYR-Homer
 
Whoot Whoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Is there a formal definition of incidental anywhere NHL wise?

That seemed more like prohibitive contact, the goalie was prevented from making a save regardless of if the puck was free.

Whoot Whoot is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:56 PM
  #115
Esa 10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
During Chi-Minn intermission Milbury said the goal shouldn't have counted. Goalie interference, missed by ref, but not reviewable.

Guess that means it was definitely a good goal.

Esa 10 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:56 PM
  #116
Griffin6612
Registered User
 
Griffin6612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Oh, should I look at a replay of a goal I've clearly seen replays of? That will help sort out the differences for sure!
Well it sure seems like you're watching something else. Nothing stoped him from playing the puck. He chose not to play it since he had no clue where it was.

Griffin6612 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 10:57 PM
  #117
Whoot Whoot
Biased-NYR-Homer
 
Whoot Whoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esa 10 View Post
During Chi-Minn intermission Milbury said the goal shouldn't have counted. Goalie interference, missed by ref, but not reviewable.

Guess that means it was definitely a good goal.
If Milbury says it was no goal I might to change my mind that is was no goal.

Whoot Whoot is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:01 PM
  #118
lastcupever75
NY Roadkill
 
lastcupever75's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin6612 View Post
Well it sure seems like you're watching something else. Nothing stoped him from playing the puck. He chose not to play it since he had no clue where it was.
yeah, i was trying to show him where the replays of the 2 angles were that clearly showed it.

but i guess he more into posting smilies

lastcupever75 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:03 PM
  #119
Whoot Whoot
Biased-NYR-Homer
 
Whoot Whoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Incidental contact would be like touching the goalie's right pad while the shot goes high left glove. Interference would be touching his right pad while the goal goes right pad.

Whoot Whoot is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:07 PM
  #120
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin6612 View Post
Well it sure seems like you're watching something else. Nothing stoped him from playing the puck. He chose not to play it since he had no clue where it was.
If his ability to make a play is interfered with physically, it doesn't actually matter what his knowledge was, or wasn't, of the location of the puck. This isn't about logic. It's about the rulebook.

He was stopped from playing the puck by Malkin's stick.

This is open to interpretation, otherwise there wouldn't be a thread about it and there wouldn't be opinions from multiple different professional analysts with differing conclusions. The idea that the only way someone could come to the conclusion I've come to is that he/she hasn't seen the replays... that's worthy of the mockery I gave to it.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:07 PM
  #121
Captain And Coke
Registered User
 
Captain And Coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 950
vCash: 500
Notice after the play stops, that Hank doesn't protest that he felt he was interfered with, but rather that he signals that he thought Malkin played the puck with a high stick ?

And the slow-motion shows that Malkin moving his arm back actually puts his glove in a better position to catch the puck that he can't see than it was in beforehand...before it bounces off his back and goes in.

But hey, the Rangers still won and that makes me very happy.

Captain And Coke is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:08 PM
  #122
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather = Evil Genius
 
Glen Sathers Cigar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,339
vCash: 500
This was more of interference than the call with Price vs Tampa in round 1. Just saying.

Glen Sathers Cigar is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:11 PM
  #123
ChrisKreider20
Oh Hai Guise
 
ChrisKreider20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,313
vCash: 500
CBC said Malkin interfered (despite it being non-reviewable) there for Malkin interfered. That's all the authority needed...

ChrisKreider20 is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:13 PM
  #124
PensPlz
Registered User
 
PensPlz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to PensPlz
To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make???".

Fluke goal, but Rags won anyways.

PensPlz is offline  
Old
05-02-2014, 11:26 PM
  #125
GoldenJet89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 574
vCash: 362
Just throwing this out there... I didnt actually see the play... But two arguments here bug me

"It was going in anyways"

"Goalie didn't even know where the puck was"

Those two points have ZERO impact on whether or not goalie interference should have been called.

If he's in his crease, he is considered attempting to make a save..always, and that's what refs are trained to call.

GoldenJet89 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.